Richard Pecore, Esq. Joins the Firm as Senior Counsel

(February 7, 2011): Liles Parker is pleased to announce that Richard Pecore has joined the Firm’s Health Law practice as Senior Counsel.  Mr. Pecore is a licensed Texas attorney and has worked on a variety of health care related matters and cases over the years.  Mr. Pecore has extensive civil litigation experience and will be representing Firm clients in “big-box” overpayment cases brought by Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) and Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs).  In recent years, Mr. Pecore has represented virtually hundreds of clients in health care related cases, conducting legal research, handling depositions and representing clients in contentious hearings.  As Managing Partner Robert W. Liles stated:

“We are thrilled to have Richard join our Health Law practice.  His litigation skills and experience will allow the Firm to further expand its representation of health care providers around the country, with an emphasis on cases in South Texas.”

At this time, Mr. Pecore will be working out of the Firm’s Washington and San Antonio offices.  Should you have any questions or would like to speak with Mr. Pecore about his legal services, please call our Washington office at (202) 298-8750.  Alternatively, you may e-mail Richard at rpecore@lilesparker.com. 

Welcome to the team, Richard!

CMS Authorizes Medicare Contractors to Accept Administrative Appeals by Facsimile and Secured Internet Transmission but Many Contractors have Yet to Implement this Change

(November 21, 2010):  Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued Change Request (CR) 6958, titled “Guidelines to Allow Contractors to Develop and Utilize Procedures for Accepting and Processing Appeals Via Facsimile and/or Via a Secure Internet Portal/Application.”  Health care providers and their counsel welcomed the guidance, anticipating that this change would make it easier when filing requests for redetermination and reconsideration. 

To its credit, CMS authorized Part A and Part B Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), Durable Medical Equipment MACs, Fiscal Intermediaries, Carriers and Regional Home Health Intermediaries (RHHIs) to accept administrative appeals by facsimile and / or secured internet transmission.  However, CMS made this change optional — at the discretion of the contractor.  CMS did not require (at least for now) that contractors implement this change.  Nor did CMS provide additional funding for contractors desiring to allow providers to file administrative appeals in this fashion.  

Many health care providers around the country have experienced difficulty quickly and appropriately responding to pre-payment review actions and extrapolated post-payment audits conducted by Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs). As Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) work their way down the provider chain, these pressures will undoubtedly increase.  The option to file an administrative appeal by facsimile or secured internet transmission would significantly assist health care providers, by both reducing filing costs (e.g. FedEx / USPS expenses) and by providing providers with options for handling appeals that must be immediately filed in order to meet applicable deadlines.

To date, few contractors have chosen to allow health care providers to file administrative appeals by facsimile or secured internet transmission. For example, TrailBlazer serves as the Part A and Part B MAC for providers in Texas.  Over the last year, providers in South Texas have been increasingly subjected to site visits, Medicare number revocation actions, pre-payment reviews and post-payment audits. Earlier this month, TrailBlazer released updated guidance covering the administrative appeals process for use by providers in its MAC region. Unfortunately, TrailBlazer confirmed its position in this regard, expressly stating “At this time, redeterminations may not be faxed to TrailBlazer.”  Hopefully, the filing of appeals by facsimile and secured e-mail will be permitted by TrailBlazer in the near future.

 As set out in CR 6958, CMS requires that contractors choosing to accept administrative appeals by facsimile and secured e-mail abide by a number of requirements covering the handling of appeals filed in this fashion.

Liles Parker attorneys represent a wide variety of health care providers in Medicare administrative overpayment cases around the country.  Should you have questions regarding a Medicare audit of your Physician Practice, Clinic, Home Health Agency, Hospice, Community Mental Health Center or DME Company, give us a call for a complimentary consultation.  Mr. Liles can be reached at 1 (800) 475-1906.

As Noted at the Los Angeles DOJ/HHS Health Care Fraud Summit — Data Mining is Being Used by DOJ to Target Health Care Providers

(August 31, 2010): Introduction: Last week, department heads of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), met in Los Angeles, CA and conducted the second of a planned series of “Regional Health Care Fraud Prevention Summits.”  Following-up on a similar conference held in Miami, DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius discussed a number of ongoing concerns and remedial steps that are being taken to identify, investigate and prosecute instances of Medicare fraud.  In addition to these agency heads, participants learned of current and additional planned fraud enforcement initiatives from Federal and State law enforcement officials.

 Issues Discussed at the Summit: As Attorney General Holder discussed, the administration’s current enforcement actions were having a significant impact on health care fraud.  In fact, additional funding has been allocated to expand the HEAT program to additional cities:

 “. . . Last year brought an historic step forward in this fight.   In May 2009, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services launched the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team, or “HEAT.”   Through HEAT, we’ve fostered unprecedented collaboration between our agencies and our law enforcement partners.   We’ve ensured that the fight against criminal and civil health care fraud is a Cabinet-level priority.   And we’ve strengthened our capacity to fight health care fraud through the enhanced use of our joint Medicare Strike Forces.    

 This approach is working.   In fact, HEAT’s impact has been recognized by President Obama, whose FY2011 budget request includes an additional $60 million to expand our network of Strike Forces to additional cities.   With these new resources, and our continued commitment to collaboration, I have no doubt we’ll be able to extend HEAT’s record of achievement.   And this record is extraordinary.

 In just the last fiscal year, we’ve won or negotiated more than $1.6 billion in judgments and settlements, returned more than $2.5 billion to the Medicare Trust Fund, opened thousands of new criminal and civil health care fraud investigations, reached an all-time high in the number of health care fraud defendants charged, and stopped numerous large-scale fraud schemes in their tracks.  

 We can all be encouraged, in particular, by what’s been accomplished in L.A.   Criminals we’ve brought to justice here – in the last year alone – include the owners of the City of Angels Hospital, who   pleaded guilty to paying illegal kickbacks to homeless shelters as part of a scheme to defraud Medicare and Medi-Cal; a physician in Torrance who defrauded insurance companies by misrepresenting cosmetic procedures as “medically necessary”; an Orange County oncologist who pleaded guilty to fraudulently billing Medicare and other health insurance companies up to $1 million for cancer medications that weren’t provided; a Santa Ana doctor who pleaded guilty to health care fraud for giving AIDS and HIV patients diluted medications; and a ring of criminals who defrauded Medi-Cal out of more than $4.5 million by using unlicensed individuals to provide in-home care to scores of disabled patients, many of them children.“ (emphasis added).

 As HHS Secretary Sebelius further noted:

“In March, we gave him some help when Congress passed and the president signed the Affordable Care Act — one of the strongest health care anti-fraud bills in American history. Under the new law we’ve begun to strengthen the screenings for health care providers who want to participate in Medicaid or Medicare.  And I am proud to announce that CMS is issuing a final rule strengthening enrollment standards for suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS).

This rule and others coming soon mean that only appropriately qualified suppliers will be enrolled in the program. The days when you could just hang a shingle over a desk and start submitting claims are over. No more power-driven wheelchairs for marathon runners.  Under the new law, we’re also making it easier for law enforcement officials to see health care claims data from around the country in one place, combining all Medicare-paid claims into a single, searchable database. And we’re getting smarter about analyzing those claims in real time to flag potential scams.  It is what credit card companies have been doing for decades:  If 10 flat screen TV’s are suddenly charged to my card in one day, they know something’s not quite right. So they put a hold on payment and call me right away. 

We should be able to take the same approach when one provider submits ten times as many claims for oxygen equipment as a similar operation just down the road.  It’s about spotting fraud early before it escalates and the cost grows.  As we step up our efforts to stamp out fraud, we’re holding ourselves accountable. The President has made a commitment to cut improper Medicare payments in half by 2012.”

While DOJ Attorney General Holder’s and HHS Secretary Sebelius’ presentations provided an overview of law enforcement’s current and future efforts, the comments of DOJ Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Lanny A. Breuer, were especially enlightening in terms of how providers are being identified and targeted for investigation.   As Mr. Breuer discussed: 

“In 2007, the Criminal Division of the Justice Department refocused our approach to investigating and prosecuting health care fraud cases. Our investigative approach is now data driven: put simply, our analysts and agents review Medicare billing data from across the country; identify patterns of unusual billing conduct; and then deploy our “Strike Force” teams of investigators and prosecutors to those hotspots to investigate, make arrests, and prosecute. And as criminals become more creative and sophisticated, we intend to use our most aggressive investigative techniques to be right at their heels. Whenever possible, we actively use undercover operations, court-authorized wiretaps and room bugs, and confidential informants to stop these schemes in their tracks.” (emphasis added).

 As Mr. Breuer’s comments further confirm, health care providers are being identified based on their billing patterns.  Through the use of data-mining, providers who coding and billing practices identify them as “outliers,” are finding themselves subjected to  administrative, civil and even criminal investigation.

 Commentary:   As counsel for a wide variety of health care providers around the country, we are especially concerned that honest, hard-working health care providers are finding themselves and their practices / clinics under investigation merely because:  (1) their productivity is higher than that of their peers, or (2) their focus is specialized and often treats a higher percentage of seriously sick patients which ultimately requires a more detailed or comprehensive examination than one might normally find.  Ultimately, through our representation of health care providers who have been targeted through data-mining, we believe that it is fundamentally unfair to investigate a provider merely on the basis of statistical data which can be manipulated in a thousand different ways in order to justify going after a specific provider or a type of practice.

 On the administrative side, when data-mining is used as a targeting tool, providers are being audited and pursued by ZPICs, PSCs and RACs – each of is incentivized (either because they receive a percentage of any overpayment OR they are under contract with CMS to find overpayments and wrongful billings) to find fault with the provider.

 Continuing Concerns:   Under the current system, providers targeted through data-mining are likely to be saddled with extrapolated damages which can easily run into the millions of dollars, regardless of the fact that a large percentage of these providers are eventually exonerated (either fully or partially) when the case is heard by an Administrative Law Judge.

 Health care providers subjected to an administrative audit (by a ZPIC, PSC or RAC), civil investigation (such as a review by the DOJ for possible False Claims Act liability), or criminal investigation (by DOJ or a State Medicaid Fraud Control Unit) should immediately contact your counsel.  Extreme care should be taken when making statements to Federal or State investigators.  Should the provider make a statement that is false or misleading, such comments could be used as the basis for bringing a separate cause of action.  Your legal counsel may choose to handle all contacts with the government.

Liles Parker attorneys represent health care providers in administrative, civil and criminal health care fraud and overpayment case.  Should you have questions regarding these issues, give us a call.  You may call 1 (800) 475-1906 for a free consultation.

 

 

 

Region B RAC CGI Announces that it will Begin Review of Eighteen Projects that Involve Medical Necessity

(August 25, 2010): CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., (CGI), has announced it will immediately begin reviews on 18 newly approved projects that involve the medical necessity of selected inpatient DRG payments.  A complete list of the “issues” currently being examined by CGI can be found on its website. http://racb.cgi.com/Issues.aspx

Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), such as CGI, contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to perform post-payment reviews of Medicare claims to find overpayments and underpayments in return for a percentage (from 9 percent to 12.5 percent) of the amounts recovered. Put simply, they eat only what they kill.  CGI was awarded responsibility for handling Region B audits.  CGI’s contingency fee contract award dollar amount is 12.50% according to CMS.  Issues where CGI will be examining “medical necessity” requirements, include certain procedures related to:

• Chest Pain
• Other Circulatory System Diagnoses
• Other Vascular Procedures
• Syncope & Collapse
• Red Blood Cell Disorders
• Atherosclerosis
• Heart Failure & Shock
• Esophagitis, Gastroenteritis & Misc Digestive Disorders
• Musculoskeletal Disorders
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
• Respiratory
• Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders
• Kidney & Urinary Tract Infections
• GI Disorders
• Percutaneous Cardiovascular Procedures
• Renal Failure
• Nervous System Disorders and
• Cardiac Arrhythmia & Conduction Disorders.

 As CGI’s website discusses, when asked “What utilization criteria will CGI be using to review for medical necessity?” in its FAQ section, CGI states, “CGI will utilize the rules for National Coverage Determinations (NCD), Local Coverage Determinations (LCD), HCPCS, ICD-9 (ICD-10 when implemented and appropriate) and CCI that were in effect on the date of service.” 

 A continuing concern of providers is that the RAC determinations of medical necessity will be  performed by personnel with little, if any, specific knowledge of the specific claims at issue.  Given the RAC business model, providers remain worried that audits will not reflect a fair and reasonable application of applicable coverage requirements. This is especially worrisome in light of the fact that approximately 41 percent of overpayments in the demonstration project were due to medical necessity determinations.

 Should you have questions regarding the RAC process, you may contact us for a complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

President Obama enacts the “Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act”

(July 22, 2010): Earlier today, President Obams enacted the “Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act,” thereby further increasing the likelihood that health care providers and others may be subjected to private sector audits of payments made by the government.

While the full impact of this legislation is not yet known, its passage is yet another indication that the government will be expanding its use of “private sector auditors” to “find and recapture government overpayments.”

As President Obama stated:

Today, the House took another critical step toward increased fiscal responsibility by passing the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act.  This bipartisan legislation will help save taxpayer dollars by reining in wasteful overpayments from the federal government to individuals, organizations and contractors – the kind of unacceptable accounting mistakes that cost taxpayers $98 billion in 2009.  This bill also puts in place more rigorous thresholds for when programs must be scrutinized for payment errors and expands the authority of Federal agencies to use private sector auditors to find and recapture government overpayments.  And it dramatically increases transparency and accountability in government spending – in short, it changes business-as-usual in Washington.

I believe that we have a special responsibility to be wise stewards of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.  That’s why last November I issued an Executive Order to curb improper payments by boosting transparency, holding agencies accountable, and creating strong incentives for compliance.  And it’s why this March I signed an order calling on all federal agencies to launch tough audits to recover some of the money lost to improper payments last year.  I applaud the House for passing legislation today that supports these goals and I hope that the Senate will take swift action to send a bill to my desk as soon as possible.”

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

With ZPICs, PSCs, and RACs Fighting Most Challenges to Their Extrapolation, Experience Counts

(July 20, 2010): In recent years, we have seen agents for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) increasingly rely on statistical extrapolation estimates when assessing claims overpayments. In early cases, attorneys successfully invalidated countless extrapolations by identifying relatively basic reasons for why the calculations were inconsistent with accepted statistical principles and practices.  Now, however, providers should expect for ZPICs and PSCs (and soon, RACs) to send a team of statisticians and attorneys to vigorously oppose most (if not all) hearings challenging the validity of the extrapolation calculation.

Regardless of whether you are providing Partial Hospitalization, Evaluation and Management (E/M), Home Health, Physical Therapy, Surgical, or other services, should your practice or clinic find that it is facing an extrapolated Medicare audit, it is strongly recommended that you engage qualified, experienced counsel to represent you as early in the process as possible.  Your legal counsel can then engage an expert statistician to assess the contractor’s actions and assist with the attorney’s efforts to have the extrapolation thrown out by either the Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) or the Administrative Law Judge hearing your case.

Before you engage counsel, you should consider asking the following questions:

• Has the attorney ever handled large, complex contractor audits before? Some firms will happily take your case, despite the fact that they have little or no experience in this area of health law. Don’t pay for your attorneys to learn how to handle a case. While every case is different, an experienced firm will have developed a number of arguments and defenses that may be readily used in your case without having to conduct costly, extensive legal research.
• Can the firm provide client references who are willing to speak with you about the quality of work performed on their Medicare statistical extrapolation case?
• Who will be working on your case? Will it be an inexperienced Associate attorney or one of the partners who has actually fought and won a multitude of Medicare overpayment claims and cases where the damages have been extrapolated by the contractors?
• What are the credentials of the attorneys and paralegals who will be working on your case? Have they ever worked on the side of the government? One of our attorneys served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for many years, ultimately being selected to serve as the First National Health Care Fraud Coordinator for the Department of Justice, Executive Office for U. S. Attorneys. In addition to a law degree, he also holds a Master’s in Health Care Administration. To fully appreciate the challenges faced by health care providers, you need an attorney who understands both the legal constraints and the practical business risks faced by health care providers.

In several of the cases we have handled, the alleged error rate has exceeded 90%.  With the resulting alleged damages often in the millions of dollars, few providers are in a position to merely pay such an overpayment.  Instead, they need experienced counsel to aggressively fight to have this overpayment overturned.  When defending these cases, it is essential that you challenge both the denial of claims and the extrapolation itself.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

Can ZPICs Use Minimal Reviews to Maximize Recoupment? Maybe. . . Maybe Not. . .

(July 12, 2010): A ZPIC’s use of extrapolation can be a surefire way of destroying a provider’s practice.  We’ve known it for years and yet the government’s passion for statistical sampling only seems to be growing.  This makes it essential for providers to involve experienced counsel as soon as possible after the audit has been conducted.  Over the last decade, Liles Parker attorneys have noted a marked increase in the prevalence of extrapolated damages.  Rather than assume that the contractor’s calculations are correct, we have aggresively challenged their use of statistical sampling in Medicare overpayment audits.

“Extrapolation” is the process of using statistical sampling in a review to calculate and project (extrapolate) alleged overpayments made in connection with Medicare claims.  Basically, ZPICs seek out errors in an alleged “statistically relevant sample” of the provider’s Medicare claims and then calculate and apply the “error rate” to the entire universe of claims covering a given period of time.  This long-standing practice allows ZPICs to grossly inflate the monetary demands on their audit targets while avoiding actually reviewing each of the Medicare claims in the universe for which they are seeking recoupment or offset.

The practice dates back twenty years to a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to authorize the use of statistical sampling in lieu of engaging in onerous claim-by-claim reviews.   In Chaves County Home Health Services v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 914 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the district court upheld extrapolation as being within the Secretary’s discretion.

In 2003, after years of protest, physicians groups and others succeeded in convincing Congress to place some limitations on the use of extrapolation.  Under Section 935 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), before an auditor can employ extrapolation, there must be either a determination of a sustained or high level of payment error, or documentation that educational intervention has failed to correct the payment error.  While this keeps the door to challenging an extrapolation open, ZPICs and PSCs now regularly participate in ALJ hearings in order to defend their use of statistical sampling.

Over the years, Liles Parker has worked with a number of the best statisticians in the country, challenging the extrapolation and having it invalidated at either the Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) level or at hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  If your practice or clinic is audited by a ZPIC, PSC or RAC,we strongly recommend that you engage experienced legal counsel to represent your interests during this complex process.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

The Next “Patient” You See May be an Undercover Agent Peforming an Audit on Your Practice.

(April 10, 2010): As the American Medical Association (AMA) recently reported on March 22^nd, 2010, health care providers may find themselves subjected to a “Secret Shopper” audit by fellow providers hired by the government to conduct reviews and investigations.

In a speech he made March 10^th, 2010, President Obama expressed interest in a proposal by Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) to have physicians and other health professionals go undercover and pose as patients to root out fraud. Apparently, President Obama included it among with several other Republican proposals which were considered when the recently passed Health Care Reform Bill was enacted.  Dr. Coburn tried to amend the Senate health reform bill with a provision that would direct the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a demonstration project for undercover investigations.  While a number of demonstration projects were ultimately included in the legislation, it isn’t clear if this is one of them.

American Medical Association (AMA) Response

Not surprisingly, the AMA has dismissed the idea of paying physicians to pretend to be patients in an effort to smoke out criminal activity.  As the AMA responded:

“The AMA has zero tolerance for health fraud, but there’s no evidence that the undercover-patient tactic would be effective or efficient in finding fraud. . . We are partnering with HHS and the Justice Dept. to address fraud, and we strongly recommend the government target areas where fraud occurs most, instead of wasting physician time that could be better spent caring for real patients.” (AMA President J. James Rohack, M.D.)

Notably, “Secret Shopper” audits and investigations are nothing new.  Both HHS and DOJ have used individuals posing as patients or employees in investigations for as long as health care fraud has been prosecuted by the government.

How Does This Affect Your Compliance Plan?

From a compliance standpoint, this could present a number of additional risks, not normally encountered in a standard billing and coding audit.  This could implicate a variety of E/M related issues.  Moreover, this may raise quality of care issues not otherwise covered in a routine audit.  To limit your potential liability, you should work with legal counsel to develop, implement and follow an effective Compliance Plan.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complimentary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other health lawyers at: 1 (800) 475-1906.

Overview of Zone Program Integrity Contractors ( ZPIC )

WHAT IS A ZPIC ?

Pursuant to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), CMS was required to use competitive measures to replace the current Medicare Fiscal Intermediaries (Part A) and Carriers (Part B) contractors with Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs).  After setting up the new MAC regions, CMS created new entities, called Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPIC). Intended to consolidate existing program integrity efforts, over the last year ZPICs have been taking over PSC audit and enforcement activities around the country.

WHAT TO DO AFTER A ZPIC REQUEST FOR RECORDS

« Previous Page